On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:48 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 12:20:13PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> > >>> I assume your tests are just done using the regular glibc allocator. I > >>> also wondered how plugging in a better allocator might fare. Here are > >>> timings I did of your mega-renames case with three binaries: one built > >>> with USE_MEMORY_POOL set to 0, one with it set to 1, and one with it set > >>> to 0 but adding "-ltcmalloc" to EXTLIBS via config.mak. > >> > >> Oh, btw, I wasn't able to apply your series from the list on top of > >> en/ort-perf-batch-14 (there are some problems in patch 4, and "am -3" > >> says my clone of git.git is missing some of the pre-image sha1s). I > >> fetched ort-perf-batch-15 from https://github.com/newren/git and timed > >> that, which I imagine is the same. But you may need to tweak the patches > >> so that Junio can pick them up. > > > > Thanks, but the batch #15 has been in 'seen' since 23rd ;-) > > Oh, that is the previous round. I haven't had the chance to pick up > this new round. Oh, interesting. At some point I had noticed that Junio based en/ort-perf-batch-14 on top of a version of master that did not include en/ort-perf-batch-12. While that was fine from a correctness point of view, it made my claims of speedups a bit weird and difficult for others to reproduce as they'd need to merge some other series first. It looks like the base for en/ort-perf-batch-14 at some point advanced to include a version of master that included en/ort-perf-batch-12. Anyway, I'm happy to re-roll this series and base it on en/ort-perf-batch-14. Peff has a few suggested improvements for me to include in that re-roll.
